By fulfilling their duties, I simply meant if they had served the time allotted in their contract. So they had determined when the servant fulfilled their duty by keeping track of the number of years served. This can be gathered from the following quote:
"From 1619 on, not long after the first settlement, the need for colonial labor was bolstered by the importation of African captives. At first, like their poor English counterparts, the Africans were treated as indentured servants, who would be freed of their obligations to their owners after serving for several years. However, over the course of the century, a new race-based slavery system developed, and by the dawn of the new century, the majority of Africans and African Americans were slaves for life."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/map1.htm... Now how people, both white and african, found themselves in indentured servitude is not an entirely rosy scenario. This is an example of how some Africans found themselves to be indentured servants.
In 1619, a Dutch ship that had pirated the cargo of a Spanish vessel -- captive Africans --anchored at Jamestown in the mouth of the James River. The ship needed supplies, so the Dutch sailors traded the Africans for food. The colonists purchased the Africans, baptized them, and gave them Christian names. At least some of these Africans, like their white counterparts, were purchased according to the usual terms for all indentured servants. They and other Africans who were transported to America at this time would become free after their years of service."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr2.h... A person could be placed in servitude by the action of a county court. In 1773, for example, a Frederick County female servant was adjudged for bastardy, having a child "begot by a Negro." The child had been born free because that was the status of the mother. The white mother was sold for 7 years of servitude and her mulatto daughter, 11 months old, was sold as a servant to serve until age of 31 years.
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/refs... A more general description is found in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" he states (page 43 in the edition I have):
"In the 1600s and 1700s, by forced exile, by lures, promises, and lies, by kidnapping, by their urgent need to escape the living conditions of the home country, poor people wanting to go to America became commodities of profit for merchants, traders, ship captains, and eventually their masters in America"
Now, as to how they could keep some indentured servants indefinitely. This was done in a variety of ways. One was through "contract extension"
More often than not, the indentured servants were shocked by their new conditions. Rather than finding venues in which they could practice their profession, like gardens and orchards, overseers marched servants out to the fields. Many died, attempted to return, or ran away. In addition to mistreatment, many servants also encountered contract extension, a popular punishment of planters for rowdy indentures.
http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/socials... Another method was to segment the servant population by religion, and declared those not Christian as slaves. The following quote is from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.h... "In 1705 Virginia declared that "All servants imported and brought in this County... who were not Christians in their Native Country... shall be slaves."
Or simply put, to pass laws declaring a specific race of indentured servants as slaves.
In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/i... Do I have solid evidence that the founding fathers kept their indentured servants indefinitely? The answer is no. However, I never made that claim. But some, including Washington and Jefferson, kept most of their slaves until they died. As to evidence that the founding fathers considered Africans to be inferior. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson's notes on the state of virginia
"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications......... This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture."
In reference to your last sentence, indentured servants in some cases were indeed sold in a similar manner as slaves. Another quote from Zinn's book:
"Indentured servants were bought and sold like slaves. An announcement in the Virginia Gazette, March 28, 1771, read:
'Just arrived at Leedstown, the Ship Justitia, with about one Hundred Healthy Servants, Men Women & Boys ... The Sale will commence on Tuesday the 2nd of April'"
There is also literature that outlines the severe lack of rights that indentured servants had. In many cases, there isn't a discernible difference between their treatment and that of slave that existed in the 18th and 19th century.
